ABDUR REHMAN KHAN, J.--This judgment will dispose of the above-noted appeals as common question of law relating to the competency of appeal by Central Government, Local authority or company for whose needs the land has been acquired under the provision of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is involved in all these appeals. The appellants are aggrieved of the judgment of the Reference Court whereby while accepting the objection petitions of the respondents under section 18/30 of the said Act, the prices of the acquired property were enhanced. At the outset the learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pir Khan v. Military Estate Officer Abbottabad etc. PLD 1987 SC 485 and in Behram Khan and 54 others v. Military Estate Officer and others SCMR 1986 page 1160 and also in Pakistan Steel Mill Corporation Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of East Karachi and others C.P.No.146-K/86 along with C.P.S.No.173-K/88, CA.No.166/75 and 167/75, the appeals filed by the appellants are not competent and, therefore, liable to be dismissed on this score. In all these appeals except Appeal No_144/86 applications for transposition of the Collector from that of respondent as appellant have also been submitted. The learned counsel for the appellants, however, still insisted and submitted to allow them to address arguments as according to them these appeals have some special distinctive character and, therefore, the dictum laid down in the above authoritative decisions would not apply. Khawaja Nazir Ahmad Advocate while arguing appeals Nos. 52, 144, 35 of 1986 referred to sections 18(2), 19, 22-A, 26, 53 and 54 of the West Pakistan Ordnance 49 of 1969 and submitted that the accumulative effect of reading these provisions together would be that the particular concern for whose needs lands are being acquired is to be associated with the proceedings and that the Collector is bound to serve. Notice on them and to afford them opportunity to make objections to the amount of compensation etc. And to adduce evidence.
Therefore, according to him on the pattern of Civil Procedure Code such a concern becomes necessary party and as such would have a right of appeal. In respect of the application for transposition it was argued by him that this Court is competent to allow the application by invoking the provision of Order 41 Rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code. Another learned counsel Sardar Ghulam Mustafa represented appellant in Appeal No.14/86 argued on the line that under the Land Acquisition Act, the Collector performs his duty as agent of the acquiring body. So according to him how the principal can be refused those powers which an agent can exercise, meaning thereby that when the Collector is competant to file an appeal then as a logical sequence the principal would also be competent to do so. In order to clarify this point he first referred to the definition of Clause (3-C) wherein Collector has been defined and then to sections 4, 5, 5-A, 8 to 12, 14 and with particular emphasis on section 16. In respect of transposition he relied on AIR 1930 Allah Bad.
Pirzada Syed Mohammad Daud Shah Advocate argued the case of the appellants in Appeals No.153 to 156 of 1986 and submitted that it appears that the provision of West Pakistan Ordinance 49 of 1969 was not brought to the notice of their Lordships while deciding the precedent cases and also submitted that the definition of "person interested" appearing in section 3-B would cover the Central Government and that according to section 3(21) and 3(28) of the General Clauses Act, Government would mean both Central and Provincial Government and that in view of these points contractual bond and privity between the acquiring authority and the owner of the property would be there. It was also added that local authority is not comparable and equal in significance with the Central Government. He also read the same provision of the Acquisition Act which the learned counsel appearing on his side had already read in order to give support to his submission. He also relied on PLD 1969 SC 65; PLJ 1979 Karachi 199 and PLD 1962 Lahore 92. Lastly it was argued that it is settled law that the act of the Court should prejudice nobody and that in his client's case this would equally apply as these appeals were competent at the time of filing them in view of 1980 CLC 1467.
2. Qazi Abdur Rahid Advocate, argued Appeal No.35/86 on behalf of the respondents. He submitted that under section 6(3) it is the Provincial Government which acquires the land and this land would then vest absolutely in the Provincial Government under section 16 of the Act and as such there would be no legal relationship between acquiring authority and the owner. He repelled the contention that the person interested would also include the acquiring body as according to him if the definition of the expression "person interested" is carefully read then it would be clear that such a person only includes that who claims an interest in the compensation to be made and not the authority for whom the land is acquired. He relied on PLD 1969 Karachi 126; PLD 1975 Peshawar 1, AIR 1976 Andra Pradesh 134 for his view. As for the application for transposition he urged that the Provincial Government has accepted the award, therefore, the appeal by the Collector would not make any difference. He referred to PLD 1971 Karachi 652. Khawaja Abdur Rashid Advocate, while answering the arguments of the other side in appeal No.14/86 pointed out that all these aspects and points as stated by the learned counsel for the appellants have been completely dealt with in the precedent cases. He was critical about the transposition application and submitted that such an application pre-supposes a legally constituted competent appeal but as under the law these appeals are not maintainable, therefore, the applications are unnecessary and superfluous. He also urged that such belated applications without reasonable explanation are liable to be summarily dismissed. In this context support was sought from AIR 1976 Andra Pradesh 362 and 134.
Mr. M. Younas Tanoli Advocate while appearing for the respondents in Appeal No.144/86 adopted the arguments of the other learned counsel on his side in respect of the competency of the appeal.
However, regarding transposition matter he was of the view that if the Collector of his own had any interest in the dispute then nothing prevented him to file an appeal and as such these applications are mala fide and have been moved at the instance of the appellant, therefore, liable to be dismissed on this score alone. Alhaj Sardar Bahadur Khan Advocate contested Appeal No.155/86 on behalf of the respondent. For the main appeal he shared the arguments of the learned counsel in support of his view point but while opposing the application for replacement of the Collector he referred to Order 1 Rule 10 and pointed out that such a transposition will not be possible because this would then be a case of misjoinder of parties. He also argued that for filing appeal of the present nature Article 156 of the Limitation Act has laid down a period of 90 days and that the present applications have been submitted after a long unjustified delay which cannot legally be accepted and that the proper course for the applicants was to have applied for substitution under section 146 of the Civil Procedure Code and then should have been ready for the consequences to flow from such an application. Haji Ghulam Basit Advocate appeared for the respondents in Appeals Nos.154 and 156 of 1987 and referred to sections 9, 16 and PLD 1961 Lahore 696 for his contention.
3. We considered these arguments in the light of the Supreme Court judgments on the point and the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. However, we have not been able to notice any special feature in these appeals which may distinguish these appeals and would not attract the application of the rule laid down in the said decisions of the Supreme Court. It appears that probably while arguing these appeals the learned counsel had not gone through the latest two judgments on the point i.e. The one reported in 1988 SCMR 1164 and the other in C.P. No.146-K/88, 173-K/88 and others, otherwise it is obvious they would have found answer to all their submissions relating to maintainability of these appeals. There hardly remains any relevant section in the context of these appeals which has not been taken note of and discussed by the honourable Judges of the Supreme Court in those judgments. The learned counsel have particularly laid great stress on the point that while giving decision in the said cases the provision of West Pakistan Ordinance 49 of 1969 was not brought to the notice of their Lordships. However, this is -not correct as this Ordinance and the amendments brought about by it have been taken note of in those judgments. Moreover, a complete answer to the most debated legal dispute of party, necessary party and interested party can be found in the following comprehensive and lucid para in Pir Khan's case PLD 1987 SC 485:- "Furthermore, neither the Central Government nor the Military Estate officer can be deemed to be parties who have been adversely affected by the order of the Civil Court. If the Central Government or the Military Estate Officer could get the land in question more cheaply by private negotiations they can refuse to accept the land at the price determined by the Court. They cannot have it both ways. Having chosen to set in motion the special powers given to the Government to acquire land under the Land Acquisition Act for public purposes they are to be confined to those provisions and cannot claim further rights and higher privilege than those provided for under the provisions of the said Act. Since under the provisions of the Act only a special and limited appeal is provided for against the award of the Court, which in the facts and circumstances of the case would be availed of by the Provincial Government or the Collector, no other party, including the appellants herein could avail of a right of appeal. As neither the Provincial Government nor the Collector chose to file an appeal, the appeal filed by the Central Government and the Military Estate Officer was indeed an appeal filed by 'Strangers', having no locus standi to file it:"
Regarding the applications for transposition of the Collector as appellant it is I obvious that the Collector could himself file appeal as there was no legal hindrance in his way. It appears that he did not feel aggrieved of the impugned orders but the applications for this purpose have been moved at the instance of the appellant. Therefore, these much belated applications without any plausible explanation are liable to be dismissed on this count alone. Moreover there is no valid appeal, therefore, to transpose the applicant as appellant would be out of question.
4.In view of the Supreme Court judgments referred above, these appeals are not competent and are, therefore, dismissed without any order as to costs. The applications for transposition of the Collector as appellant are also without merits and are accordingly dismissed.